News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Recent posts

#1
Northeast / Re: New York
Last post by vdeane - Today at 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: machias on Today at 12:04:07 PMState maintained routes around the Southern Tier Expressway are fascinating when it comes to following the reference markers because it shows the original numbers attached to the roadway. The regions are uneven with replacing the marker data (which they're not suppose to do) when a route number changes.  For example, R3 changed the NY 57 reference markers to NY 370 when 57 was decommissioned, but R2 kept NY 12C on NY 291. 
And I-390 from exits 3 to 5 used to say "245" on all the reference markers.  They still do in Region 6, but Region 4 switched to "390I" some years ago.

They are also interesting in the case of where counties have changed region.  Wayne County is still 37 and Tioga 65 on reference markers, even though Wayne has been Region 4 for decades and Tioga Region 9 since 2006.  The Region 10 and 11 split is fascinating too, as the region code accurately reflects things as they are today but the county code reflects when they were both the same region (which is how Suffolk County can be 07 even though Region 10 only has two counties and Staten Island is X6 even though NYC only has 5 boroughs).

Quote from: Rothman on Today at 01:08:02 PMJust a reminder that as NYSDOT's design docs focus more and more on milepoints, RMs are becoming obsolete.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Indeed, the ownership over the reference marker system has moved from bureau to bureau as more and more things switch to GIS/milepoint (especially with the crash data in CLEAR, as that data was the reason why the reference markers weren't supposed to change in the first place).  It will be interesting to see what happens if they go away, however, as at least one region still uses reference markers for projects and ends up translating to/from milepoint whenever they interact with Main Office.

(personal opinion)
#2
Bridges / Re: The Guess That Bridge thre...
Last post by dlsterner - Today at 09:09:49 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on Today at 05:38:31 AM
Quote from: dlsterner on June 23, 2024, 11:00:22 PMSo, that makes it my turn to post a bridge.  I expect this one shouldn't be too difficult.  One uncommon feature this bridge has is a pedestrian pier under the actual bridge deck!  Good Luck!

I've always enjoyed this thread; hopefully it can get back going again!





A1A bridge across Sebastian Inlet, FL?

DeaconG, you are correct!  Your turn to post a bridge picture for us to guess.
#3
Northeast / Re: NYC Roads
Last post by vdeane - Today at 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on Today at 08:01:45 PMSome "State Highway Ends" or "Begin Local Maintenance" signs are in order.
Could be useful even outside of NYC .  "Surface roads in cities are local while other signed touring routes are state" is a good rule overall, but exceptions abound.  There are the county-maintained portions of touring routes (although those often have county pentagons making them easy to identify), the cities with both inner and outer districts where the outer district acts more like a town (Rome and Saratoga Springs are the major ones; IIRC Oneida is the third), but also one-off exceptions like NY 67 in Ballston Spa (a small piece is village maintained) and US 4 in Mechanicville (most of it is state, but a small piece is city).  And even most DOT employees wouldn't know them all from memory.

There's also the Thruway and various bridge authorities, but those are a bit more obvious.

Even "look for the reference markers" doesn't work.  Reference marker coverage is not reliable in NYC, and at least part of the county-maintained portion of NY 155 has them.
#4
Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Last post by jnewkirk77 - Today at 09:07:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on Today at 08:10:02 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on Today at 06:34:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on Today at 12:11:21 PMOnce the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge is completed, I would like the remainder of present-day Interstate 69 west to US 41 to become an extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway, instead of a 3di such as Interstate 169. Also, I think interchange at US 41 should also be reconfigured, since its existing configuration will probably be overkill once the Interstate 69 bridge is completed.

I don't know that there's been any discussion of the 41 interchange, but I wouldn't anticipate major changes to it unless the cost is minimal. 

I'm with you on extending the Veterans Memorial Parkway designation, and I'd go a step further: Extend it at the other end, too, along Riverside and Fulton up to the Lloyd.
Riverside Dr feels like a more fitting road name for a roadway around the waterfront near Downtown... not "Veterans Memorial Parkway".

I never said it wasn't, but for continuity's sake, I've just always thought it should be. If they didn't want to change the actual street name, they could perhaps sign it as the Parkway, sort of like a highway designation.
#5
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on July 18, 2024, 08:24:04 PMDespite the reduced speed limit on this section down to SR 144 as it is still technically an active work zone despite no construction-related stuff in sight, there were multiple vehicles going interstate-speeds, some in excess of 75mph.
Some states will use variable speed limits, to legally permit 70 mph (or 65 mph) travel speeds when no active work is occurring, and can lower it to 55 mph when work is occurring and there is an need to slow down.

Posting an area as an "active work zone" and a "45" or "55" mph speed limit (when there isn't a cone, lane shift, barrier, etc. in sight) will lead to virtually zero compliance. Can't say I blame those going "interstate speeds". The same road will be posted at 70 mph (or 65 mph) once the project is complete and will be no different.

It is not an active work zone if there are no workers present, no equipment, and no lane shifts, cones, barriers, etc.
#6
Quote from: JREwing78 on June 29, 2024, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 23, 2024, 05:53:20 PM
Quote from: TempoNick on June 23, 2024, 05:39:48 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 23, 2024, 05:31:55 PMThat extension routing makes less sense than the current routing of US-23.  You're not helping the argument to eliminate an illogical routing by proposing an even more ludicrous one.

There is nothing at all illogical about it. For all intents and purposes, Ohio 15 and US 23 are the same highway. A highway that appears to the driver as a single highway should have a uniform number rather than switching numbers for no apparent reason, not to mention that it is a four lane highway through most of the state.

US 23 to I-75, then concurrent with I-75 until I-475 W. Problem solved.

I don't argue against that at all.  I argue that the suggested extension routing of US-224 (to keep a US route on the existing US-23 alignment) makes even less sense than the current US-23 routing.  "For all intents and purposes, Ohio 15 and US 23 are the same highway."  I agree.  Are you going to say that I-475 <-> I-75 <-> I-280 also is, for all intents and purposes, one highway?  (Although an interesting side effect is that the I-280 and OH-420 designations could be eliminated.)
I agree extending OH-420 south makes the most sense; Fostoria doesn't need a US-highway designation. But clearly *something* is forcing Ohio to keep the existing illogical US-23 routing. I'm trying to come up with ideas so Ohio can fix it.

Looking over an ODOT map from 1966, it looks like OH-199 and US-23 subsequently flip-flopped designations north of Fostoria, AFTER the OH-15 expressway was designated between Findlay and Carey. That lends even more credence to the idea that ODOT wanted to reroute US-23 out of Fostoria but couldn't. I suspect AASHTO is that reason - that they want to maintain a US-highway designation in Fostoria. Bringing down US-223 would be the least confusing way to do it.

A single route designation guiding folks around Toledo's north and east sides doesn't exist now. Following I-475 north (east) to I-75 north (east) to I-280 south is the most direct path to the eastbound Ohio Turnpike for folks coming from Michigan. It makes more sense than extending another US-route designation down the west side and along US-20.

If I have to maintain a US-highway designation in Fostoria, I might as well give it a navigational purpose. Currently it takes 5 different route designations to navigate from Carey around the north and east sides of Toledo. Giving that path one designation would aid navigation, and I'm trading worthless concurrencies for one that's slightly less worthless. Oh, and now the currently 46-mile long US-223 can be a 118-mile US-223.


Many of the State and US routes in and around Toledo have flip-flopped alignments  over the decades (like the SR 199/US 23 flip flop) -- the biggest, and most recent was the Toledo reroutings of 1986, where pretty much all non-interstate numbered routes were either re-routed (SR 120), swapped (portions of US 24 and SR 25 traded alignments), truncated (US 223) or extended (SR 65 & SR 51).  US 20 was left unaffected as was SR 246 and SR 420.

So any changing of numbered route alignments is somewhat normal for that area.

Here's a very simple solution for the SR-15 debacle -- move US 23 to the current SR-15 alignment, then duplex 23 along I-75  to I 475...

Then extend **US 68** from it's current northern terminus in Findlay (at the I 75/SR 15 interchange), east along the relocated US 23 to Carey, then US 68 would follow the old 23 alignment north to US 20, then replace the short SR 420 segment, ending at the Ohio Turnpike/I 80/I 90.

For those of you who didn't know, at one time US 68 ran all the way up to, and ended in, Toledo. Now it returns (close) to it's original terminus town.

US-23 is now on it's most logical routing on all limited access highways from Carey to Perrysburg and Fostoria still gets a US route (68) running through it. US 68 also becomes a "bypass route" of sorts for those travelers wanting to avoid I-75 to access the eastern fringe of Toledo and points east.
#7
I hope this isn't too late for everybody, but I was just reminded that Redamak's is cash only. They do not take credit nor debit cards.
#8
Pacific Southwest / Re: Was highway 237 ever plann...
Last post by cahwyguy - Today at 08:26:13 PM
If you look at the historic Route 9, there would have been a connection (although Route 237 would have been Route 9): https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE009.html

Pre 1964 Signage History
This route consisted of two segments:

The first segment ran between Santa Cruz and the present northern Route 9/Route 236 junction near Waterman Gap. This segment was LRN 116, and was added to the state highway system in 1933.
The second segment ran between Route 236 and Route 17 in Los Gatos (through Saratoga). This segment was LRN 42. The portion between Route 236 and Saratoga Gap was added to the state highway system in 1913; the remainder of the segment from Saratoga Gap to Los Gatos was added in 1933.
In 1934, Route 9 was signed along the route from Santa Cruz to Milpitas via Redwood Park.

According to research by Tom Fearer, the original routing of Route 9 traveled west from Milpitas on Route 17 (nee Route 13) along LRN 113 via Alviso-Milpitas Road and 1st Street to Alviso. From Alviso, LRN 113 continued south on Gold Street and west to Mathilda Avenue.  The original alignment of LRN 113 is largely buried under the Route 237 freeway. LRN 113 was realigned out of Alviso by 1958. CA 9 then traveled south on LRN 114 via Mathilda Avenue to the El Camino Real/US 101 in Sunnyvale.  Route 9 on LRN 114 took an eastern jog on El Camino Real/US 101 before turning south on Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road.  Route 9 continued south LRN 114 via Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road to Big Basin Way in downtown Saratoga.  LRN 114 became the original alignment of Route 85 during the 1964 California Highway Renumbering.  Route 9 traveled west from Saratoga on LRN 42 to Big Basin State Park. LRN 42 and LRN 44 were developed off of preexisting logging roads.  LRN 42 and LRN 44 would become Route 236 during the 1964 State Highway Renumbering. Maps in 1940 begin to show Route 9 using LRN 116 to reach Route 1 in Santa Cruz.
(Source: Summarized from Gribblenation Blog "California State Route 9", August 2020)

In Saratoga, the original signage of Route 9 diverged from the present signage. The signed Route 9, as LRN 114, proceeded North on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road into Sunnyvale via Mathilda Ave, thence to a jct with Alviso-Milpitas Road (currently signed as Route 237), and a junction with Bypass US-101 (LRN 68). It appears this segment was defined in 1933. On October 18, 1956, the Highway Commission adopted the routing for a future freeway location for Route 9 (now Route 85) from Bayshore Freeway north of Moffett Field, generally following Stevens Creek to an existing Route 9 location north of Azule near Saratoga.


In 1956, public hearings were conducted for "Sign Route 9" (future Route 85) between Azula (Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road) and the Bayshore Freeway. Azule is located at the railroad crossing on Sign Route 9 between Saratoga and Cupertino. The proposed freeway (which is hard to map to present routings due to street changes and the orientation of the map) runs roughly along the lines of Stevens Creek and westerly of the present highway, just N of Moffett Field. As of 1956, Sign Route 9 (now Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road and Matilda Ave, as the state signage for Sign Route 9 in this area was dropped in the 1964 renumbering) met the Alviso-Mountain View Road (future Route 237) just S of Moffett Field.
(Source: 1956 Newspaper Article via Joel Windmiller, 2/13/2023)

The route signed as Route 9 then proceeded on the current Route 237 alignment into Milpitas. This was LRN 113. It ran east as Route 237 to Route 17 (LRN 69; now I-880). Before the current bridge over the Guadalupe River was constructed, it took a route into Alviso via Gold Street north and 1st Street southwest back to current Route 237.

Between Milpitas and Warm Springs, Route 9 ran N along a LRN 69 (Route 17, now I-880) to present-day Route 262 near Warm Springs. This segment, as LRN 69, was added to the state highway system in 1933.

Near Warm Springs, Route 9 ran along the present-day Route 262 routing between Route 17 (present-day I-880) and Route 21 (present-day Route 680). This was part of LRN 5, defined in 1909.

Between the present-day Route 262/I-680 junction near Warm Springs and Irvington, Route 9 ran cosigned with Route 21 to Irvington, near Mission San Jose. This segment was LRN 5, and was added to the state highway system in 1909.

Near the mission (at Mission Blvd), Route 9 diverged, continuing signed as Route 9 (but still LRN 5) along what is now Route 238, ending at US 50 (present-day I-580). This was also added in 1909.
#9
Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: I-69 Ohio River Bridge
Last post by sprjus4 - Today at 08:10:02 PM
Quote from: jnewkirk77 on Today at 06:34:36 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on Today at 12:11:21 PMOnce the Interstate 69 Ohio River Bridge is completed, I would like the remainder of present-day Interstate 69 west to US 41 to become an extension of the Veterans Memorial Parkway, instead of a 3di such as Interstate 169. Also, I think interchange at US 41 should also be reconfigured, since its existing configuration will probably be overkill once the Interstate 69 bridge is completed.

I don't know that there's been any discussion of the 41 interchange, but I wouldn't anticipate major changes to it unless the cost is minimal. 

I'm with you on extending the Veterans Memorial Parkway designation, and I'd go a step further: Extend it at the other end, too, along Riverside and Fulton up to the Lloyd.
Riverside Dr feels like a more fitting road name for a roadway around the waterfront near Downtown... not "Veterans Memorial Parkway".
#10
Great Lakes and Ohio Valley / Re: Indiana Notes
Last post by ilpt4u - Today at 08:02:11 PM
Quote from: NWI_Irish96 on Today at 11:56:46 AM
Quote from: hobsini2 on Today at 11:11:23 AM
Quote from: ITB on July 18, 2024, 11:13:23 PMPressure is mounting to upgrade US 30 to a freeway in northern Indiana. At a US 30 Coalition Summit event in Warsaw, Ivan Tornos, the president of Zimmer Biomet, one of the Indiana's largest employers, said "We need to get a freeway that is safe and efficient. We must get US 30 resolved. Lives and jobs are at risk." He added that he and Governor Holcomb would be meeting again to talk specifically about US 30. "We want to be in Warsaw, Indiana, for the next 800 years ... but we can not make the commitment to be here long term if we don't resolve this."

In total, there were three panel discussions that took place at the event. More than 100 state and local business and political leaders attended. Read an in-depth account of the discussions, published by inkFreeNews.com, and from which the above quotes were taken, here.


Good. They should make US 30 a freeway at least around the bigger towns and small cities. I would like to see freeway upgrades to 30 in Indiana as follows:
I-65 - Merrillville to Indiana 49 - Valparaiso
Queen Rd - Plymouth to Indiana 331 - Bourbon
N 700 W Rd - Atwood to I-69 - Ft Wayne
The rest of it can remain expressway as it currently is.

Part of the agreement to lease the toll road was an agreement not to build/upgrade to freeway within a certain distance. I'm not 100% certain, but I think this eliminates the possibility of any upgrades west of Marshall County.
Start swinging it a bit south of whatever the minimum separation distance from I-90 and south of Merrillville and make it tie into the Indiana side of the Illiana...aka Everyone's fictional I-76 or relocated I-80

A legit southern suburban alternative to 80/94 would have to make money unless the tolls are ungodly high

Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.